Question:
Is GDDR5 twice as fast (or more) to what MS is having in X8OX?

If not, then I would argue that it is better with more RAM.

Or, any devs here.. If you could only choose one thing, what would it be, more ram or fast ram?

Think about RAM like this:

It serves a cache memory. Things load and unload (sound, textures, code) using ram. More ram is good, better for those who are inefficient and sloppy coders. Faster ram, leads to everything optimally unpacking/streaming from memory. It doesn't clog up, or cause loading problems.

Example: if you were syncing pictures from a camera, to PC - do you want the images to compress and then uncompress, which would be efficient (GDDR)? Or do you want to transfer over each full size file one at a time, taking up more space, than is needed(DDR)?

Or like a suitcase: throw clothes in, or fold them? You can fill up the suitcase, in either case, but one is more efficient for the space allowed. The other is a sloppy mess.

My example is not exact, but thing of ram working like that. More RAM is good, but faster - efficient - ram is better. Most developers want more ram, because it's quick and they don't need to be efficient. They can just throw whatever in and not care if it's not optimal.

- GDDR5 bandwidth benefit is only useful with more intensive, pixel hogging games

Does that seem fair?

No. This RAM pool is shared for the APU (CPU+GPU) and dedicated GPU. Moving any data around would be much quicker, along with fill rate and rendering related work. The 720 would have to have edram or the equivalent to make up for the DDR3 or it would be in bad shape.

So many of you making this stupid statement as if speed is actually everything.

Look at Wii U, it gets downports whereas it has more RAM (but slower) than the HD twins.
If you can have 4GB GDDR5 (it's insane in 2013, you know), you are the winner. Even if Durango has 32GB DDR3... :D

And, you know, when one guy says: "oh they won't waste GDDR5 with OS" (OS! OS! OS!!!!), he doesn't mean that the GDDR5 will be dedicated VRAM and that another pool will be used for the CPU in the APU (lol ^^)... He just says that they may end up with a small quantity of DDR3 for OS multitasking.

No. This RAM pool is shared for the APU (CPU+GPU) and dedicated GPU. Moving any data around would be much quicker, along with fill rate and rendering related work. The 720 would have to have edram or the equivalent to make up for the DDR3 or it would be in bad shape.

Just looking at the spec rumors I would expect the ps4 to be more powerful, but all the rumors suggest they are about even. I expect the 720 to have a healthy amount of edram.

Just as a side note, the memory setup would be in keeping with the philosophy a Sony VP outlined in a presentation a little while back.

He explained that their opinion was that high bandwidth was a key to rendering performance.

He outlined the PS2 approach - relatively high bandwidth to a relatively small amount of memory.

The PS3 approach - relatively 'medium' bandwidth to a larger amount of memory.

And then said for the future they want the best of both: relatively high bandwidth to a relatively large amount of memory.

I think 4GB-200GB/s would be in keeping with that philosophy.

Microsoft's philosophy, if rumours are true, is obviously different. Relatively small bandwidth to a LARGE amount of memory + high bandwidth to a relatively small amount of memory.

Either could opt for what the other is doing so I think they're both sincerely looking at their own requirements and what developers are asking of them. They've probably come across a lot of various opinions...satisfying all of them would be impossible. Sony was probably told very resoundingly, though, that 2GB was too little, hence the change.

What I'm curious about in Microsoft's case is the talk of Windows 8 and the suggestion that their box might almost present a games machine and a custom W8 'PC' type experience in parallel, each with dedicated resources, perhaps substantial resources for the latter relative to a normal console OS. It would make sense to opt for larger memory over faster memory if that goal is a core one.

It serves a cache memory. Things load and unload (sound, textures, code) using ram. More ram is good, better for those who are inefficient and sloppy coders. Faster ram, leads to everything optimally unpacking/streaming from memory. It doesn't clog up, or cause loading problems.

Example: if you were syncing pictures from a camera, to PC - do you want the images to compress and then uncompress, which would be efficient (GDDR)? Or do you want to transfer over each full size file one at a time, taking up more space, than is needed(DDR)?

Or like a suitcase: throw clothes in, or fold them? You can fill up the suitcase, in either case, but one is more efficient for the space allowed. The other is a sloppy mess.

My example is not exact, but thing of ram working like that. More RAM is good, but faster - efficient - ram is better. Most developers want more ram, because it's quick and they don't need to be efficient. They can just throw whatever in and not care if it's not optimal.

Interesting analogy. So what you are saying is Bethesda would like more RAM while other dev's will be able to make use of the faster Ram more efficiently.

Look at Wii U, it gets downports whereas it has more RAM (but slower) than the HD twins.
If you can have 4GB GDDR5 (it's insane in 2013, you know), you are the winner. Even if Durango has 32GB DDR3... :D

And, you know, when one guy says: "oh they won't waste GDDR5 with OS" (OS! OS! OS!!!!), he doesn't mean that the GDDR5 will be dedicated VRAM and that another pool will be used for the CPU in the APU (lol ^^)... He just says that they may end up with a small quantity of DDR3 for OS multitasking.

It serves a cache memory. Things load and unload (sound, textures, code) using ram. More ram is good, better for those who are inefficient and sloppy coders. Faster ram, leads to everything optimally unpacking/streaming from memory. It doesn't clog up, or cause loading problems.

Example: if you were syncing pictures from a camera, to PC - do you want the images to compress and then uncompress, which would be efficient (GDDR)? Or do you want to transfer over each full size file one at a time, taking up more space, than is needed(DDR)?

Or like a suitcase: throw clothes in, or fold them? You can fill up the suitcase, in either case, but one is more efficient for the space allowed. The other is a sloppy mess.

My example is not exact, but thing of ram working like that. More RAM is good, but faster - efficient - ram is better. Most developers want more ram, because it's quick and they don't need to be efficient. They can just throw whatever in and not care if it's not optimal.

I don't develop, I understand though

So wouldn't the DRR be more friendly to developers? This is assuming that the amount of DDR is relatively equal in usefulness to the amount of GDDR...

Seriously, can we expect a game / games which will attract enough customers to the new systems at this economy state?

Can people afford it? Yes, people are still dropping tons of cash on electronics. Will they? Who knows. I can't predict the future, but I expect there to be millions of units being moved in the first few months no questions asked.

The only real problem I can see for them right now is digital games bleeding money away from the retail game market. I believe it was in September or so that NPD claimed that somehing like 12 million gamers "mysteriously disappeared". But, they didn't disappear, they just got an ipad / android device and play Angry Birds now instead of dropping $60 on console games.

So 720 has more ram, but it's slower, while PS4 has less ram, but faster? If so, which one has the advantage?

If Team ICO leaves Sony and goes multiplatform, then I'll definately get 720.

It won't be very different from this generation. There will be a handful of things one platform does better than the other, and vice versa. In fact the disparity will probably even be smaller than the one between the PS3/360. My bet is that it'll be software support and interface that defines the differences more than anything.

It serves a cache memory. Things load and unload (sound, textures, code) using ram. More ram is good, better for those who are inefficient and sloppy coders. Faster ram, leads to everything optimally unpacking/streaming from memory. It doesn't clog up, or cause loading problems.

Example: if you were syncing pictures from a camera, to PC - do you want the images to compress and then uncompress, which would be efficient (GDDR)? Or do you want to transfer over each full size file one at a time, taking up more space, than is needed(DDR)?

Or like a suitcase: throw clothes in, or fold them? You can fill up the suitcase, in either case, but one is more efficient for the space allowed. The other is a sloppy mess.

My example is not exact, but thing of ram working like that. More RAM is good, but faster - efficient - ram is better. Most developers want more ram, because it's quick and they don't need to be efficient. They can just throw whatever in and not care if it's not optimal.

I don't develop, I understand though

Isn't this the same kind of thinking which was detrimental to development of PS3 ports by third parties? Sloppy or not, where time is money, you want to make a piece of tech as developer friendly as possible so that the bad ones can do good a job and the good ones do a great one.

I think Sony is in a better position for early internal software output for the next generation. On the software side of things we can probably expect first year PS4 titles from:

Guerrilla Games (Last major game was KZ3 in early 2011)
Sucker Punch (Last major game was Infamous 2 in mid 2011)
Naughty Dog (Last major game was Uncharted 3 in late 2011)
Evolution Studios (Last major game was MS:Apocalypse in mid 2011)

Then you also have Sony developers who are likely already working on PS4 titles but are not as far along as the above studios:

Polyphony Digital (Last major game was GT5 late 2010)
-This studio is notorious for having ridiculously long development cycles.

Sony Santa Monica (Last major game was GOWIII in early 2010)
-Stig and team #1 has been rumored to be working on a new IP since GOWIII released.

Media Molecule (Last major game was LBP2 in early 2011)
-They are also developing Teraway for PSVita

Of course, this is all based on when these studios last shipped PS3 games along with knowledge regarding how many teams each studio has as well as the timing of previous output from these studios.

EDIT:
Not to mention wildcards like Team ICO moving The Last Guardian to PS4 similar to Ico going PS1->PS2. There are also many "second party" deals Sony likely has in place with studios like Quantic Dream and Insomniac for PS4.

I think Sony is in a better position for early internal software output for the next generation. On the software side of things we can probably expect first year PS4 titles from:

Guerrilla Games (Last major game was KZ3 in early 2011)
Sucker Punch (Last major game was Infamous 2 in mid 2011)
Naughty Dog (Last major game was Uncharted 3 in late 2011)
Evolution Studios (Last major game was MS:Apocalypse in mid 2011)

Then you also have Sony developers who are likely already working on PS4 titles but are not as far along as the above studios:

Polyphony Digital (Last major game was GT5 late 2010)
-This studio is notorious for having ridiculously long development cycles.

Sony Santa Monica (Last major game was GOWIII in early 2010)
-Stig and team #1 has been rumored to be working on a new IP since GOWIII released.

Media Molecule (Last major game was LBP2 in early 2011)
-They are also developing Teraway for PSVita

Of course, this is all based on when these studios last shipped PS3 games along with knowledge regarding how many teams each studio has as well as the timing of previous output from these studios.

Well, someone else mentioned that MS has been on a hiring spree (and clearly they're all working on 720, if the 360's 2013 release schedule is any indication). But I think I agree with you... if... Sony are smart enough to realize they need new IP. Other than Gran Turismo, and MAYBE Uncharted 4, Sony needs a fresh breath of air. No Killzone, no LBP, no Infamous (to my despair), and DEFINITELY no Motorstorm. All these teams' games should be something new, otherwise we're just looking at prettier versions of things we already know.

I think Sony is in a better position for early internal software output for the next generation. On the software side of things we can probably expect first year PS4 titles from:

Guerrilla Games (Last major game was KZ3 in early 2011)
Sucker Punch (Last major game was Infamous 2 in mid 2011)
Naughty Dog (Last major game was Uncharted 3 in late 2011)
Evolution Studios (Last major game was MS:Apocalypse in mid 2011)

Then you also have Sony developers who are likely already working on PS4 titles but are not as far along as the above studios:

Polyphony Digital (Last major game was GT5 late 2010)
-This studio is notorious for having ridiculously long development cycles.

Sony Santa Monica (Last major game was GOWIII in early 2010)
-Stig and team #1 has been rumored to be working on a new IP since GOWIII released.

Media Molecule (Last major game was LBP2 in early 2011)
-They are also developing Teraway for PSVita

Of course, this is all based on when these studios last shipped PS3 games along with knowledge regarding how many teams each studio has as well as the timing of previous output from these studios.

If Team ICO leaves Sony and goes multiplatform, then I'll definately get 720.

team ico is already dead as we used to know it. ueda already said he's going to leave sony after the last guardian. if he ends up sticking around, creates another studio or just goes away to do something else, it's anyone's guess.

Sony needs a fresh breath of air. No Killzone, no LBP, no Infamous (to my despair), and DEFINITELY no Motorstorm.

Media Molecule & Evolution are working on new IPs for sure. Killzone won't be going anywhere though. LBP? MM isn't working on it anymore but I'd be kind of surprised if there wasn't at least one outing for it on PS4 from another dev. But MM are working on something new.

Hey I'm just trying to get an idea of what the playing field is going to look like in terms of first-party software early on. For MS I can see Turn 10, Epic, Crytek, and many of the new start-up studios pumping out early Durango titles.